NAE passes resolution on pastor sex abuse, calls on churches to thoroughly vet all hires

The one question I have—look at the list of recommendations—is how churches can set up “confidential third party mechanisms” for reporting. Where that is required in the secular world—e.g. HR, Title IX, SafeSport, etc..—the end result seems to be that too often, allegations remain in the “confidential third party mechanism” instead of getting to the police where they belong.

Another thing that doesn’t appear in the list of recommendations explicitly (to be fair, it’s just a summary) is a quick summary of some basic guidelines to avoid problems, and why one would want to follow them. Hopefully that comes soon—I’m seeing that it’s amazing how people respond when you give them that incentive.

[Bert Perry]

The one question I have—look at the list of recommendations—is how churches can set up “confidential third party mechanisms” for reporting. Where that is required in the secular world—e.g. HR, Title IX, SafeSport, etc..—the end result seems to be that too often, allegations remain in the “confidential third party mechanism” instead of getting to the police where they belong.

This: The “confidential third party mechanism”

One big objection that I have to many activists, particularly in the regime of Title IX, is that many want to dispense with such niceties as “hearings” (short for “hearings of evidence” ), standards of proof, and cross examination. Ironically, the “kangaroo courts” many would advocate would make it more difficult to punish perpetrators because (for obvious reasons) sexual crimes tend to happen in private,and the evidence is “he said/she said”.

Cross examination is a great way to break through such evidence because it’s hard to lie the same way twice. Now survivors often hate it because they’re too often victimized again by defense lawyers (and friends of the accused), but I don’t see a good way of getting around it You want to compare the credibility of both parties, you’ve got to have it in some form.